Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ray Lee Cason's convictions and 444-month sentence for bank robbery, possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court determined that Cason's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively established by the record and must be brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also found that Cason had no legitimate defense to his career offender designation and that while the district court erred in treating the guidelines as mandatory, this error did not affect Cason's substantial rights or result in an unreasonable sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ray Lee Cason's convictions and 444-month sentence for bank robbery, possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court determined that Cason's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively established by the record and must be brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also found that Cason had no legitimate defense to his career offender designation and that while the district court erred in treating the guidelines as mandatory, this error did not affect Cason's substantial rights or result in an unreasonable sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-07-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-4424

    Original Title

    United States v. Cason, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ray Lee Cason's convictions and 444-month sentence for bank robbery, possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court determined that Cason's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively established by the record and must be brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also found that Cason had no legitimate defense to his career offender designation and that while the district court erred in treating the guidelines as mandatory, this error did not affect Cason's substantial rights or result in an unreasonable sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    30 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ray Lee Cason's convictions and 444-month sentence for bank robbery, possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court determined that Cason's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively established by the record and must be brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also found that Cason had no legitimate defense to his career offender designation and that while the district court erred in treating the guidelines as mandatory, this error did not affect Cason's substantial rights or result in an unreasonable sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-4424

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAY LEE CASON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-03-5)

    Submitted:

    June 30, 2005

    Decided:

    July 26, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jennifer W. Moore, THE MOORE LAW FIRM, Asheville, North Carolina,


    for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,
    Donald D. Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ray Lee Cason appeals his jury conviction and 444-month
    sentence

    for

    bank

    robbery

    by

    use

    of

    dangerous

    weapon,

    in

    violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(d) (2000); possession of a firearm in


    relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)
    (2000); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.
    922(g) (2000).

    Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with

    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in her


    view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

    Counsel and

    Cason have filed supplemental briefs raising additional issues. We


    affirm Casons convictions and sentence.
    Counsel raises as a potential issue that Casons trial
    counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

    To succeed in a claim of

    ineffective assistance on direct appeal, a defendant must show


    conclusively from the face of the record that counsel provided
    ineffective representation.

    See United States v. Richardson, 195

    F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).

    Because the record does not

    conclusively establish counsels ineffectiveness, we conclude that


    Casons claims must be brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28
    U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    In his pro se supplemental brief, Cason maintains that
    the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by imposing
    a sentence enhanced by a designation of career offender status on
    facts not alleged in the indictment, not admitted by him, and not

    - 2 -

    found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Specifically, Cason

    claims that the district courts finding that his prior convictions
    qualified as crimes of violence for determining his career offender
    status, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 4B1.2 (2003),
    constituted

    impermissible

    judicial

    fact-finding

    States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

    under

    United

    However, we conclude from

    the record that Cason has no legitimate defense to the career


    offender designation.

    United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 247

    (4th Cir. 2005).


    Cason also claims that even if the district court did not
    err in designating him a career offender, it erred in failing to
    treat the guidelines as advisory.

    Because this objection was not

    raised in the district court, we review for plain error.

    See Fed.

    R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32


    (1993).
    Although the district court committed error that was
    plain in treating the guidelines as mandatory, see United States v.
    Hughes,

    401

    demonstrate
    mandatory

    F.3d
    that

    540,
    the

    guidelines

    547-48

    error
    scheme

    in

    (4th

    Cir.

    imposing

    affected

    2005),
    his

    his

    Cason

    sentence

    substantial

    cannot
    under

    rights.

    Therefore, the sentence is not plainly erroneous in light of


    Booker.

    Neither is there any indication that Casons sentence was

    unreasonable; thus, we conclude from the record that Casons

    - 3 -

    sentencing challenge lacks merit.

    See United States v. White, 405

    F.3d 208, 224 (4th Cir. 2005).


    As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
    in this case and found no error.
    convictions

    and

    sentence

    and

    Accordingly, we affirm Casons

    deny

    his

    motion

    to

    relieve

    and

    substitute counsel. This court requires that counsel inform Cason,


    in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
    United States for further review.

    If Cason requests that a

    petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would


    be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
    withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion must state that a

    copy thereof was served on the Cason. We dispense with oral


    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 4 -

    You might also like